Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Road Cycling
Reload this Page >

Sizing Question - CC fit calculator

Notices
Road Cycling “It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle.” -- Ernest Hemingway

Sizing Question - CC fit calculator

Old 09-30-11, 12:23 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sizing Question - CC fit calculator

Yesterday I used the Competitive Cyclist fit calculator to get an idea of what size road bike I should be looking at. Now, bearing in mind I took the measurements alone, and that I have also test ridden 3 different size bikes, how accurate is the calculator?

Below are posted my results:

The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 54.3 - 54.8
Seat tube range c-t: 56.0 - 56.5
Top tube length: 61.2 - 61.6
Stem Length: 12.2 - 12.8
BB-Saddle Position: 84.1 - 86.1
Saddle-Handlebar: 58.6 - 59.2
Saddle Setback: 2.4 - 2.8


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 55.5 - 56.0
Seat tube range c-t: 57.2 - 57.7
Top tube length: 61.2 - 61.6
Stem Length: 11.1 - 11.7
BB-Saddle Position: 83.3 - 85.3
Saddle-Handlebar: 59.4 - 60.0
Saddle Setback: 3.6 - 4.0


The French Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 57.2 - 57.7
Seat tube range c-t: 58.9 - 59.4
Top tube length: 62.4 - 62.8
Stem Length: 11.3 - 11.9
BB-Saddle Position: 81.6 - 83.6
Saddle-Handlebar: 61.1 - 61.7
Saddle Setback: 3.1 - 3.5


If I am reading this right, judging by the Competitive Fit results, I should be looking at a 60cm bike? Which going by my experience of test riding bikes is about right. I have tried a 58, 60 and 61cm bike and felt comfortable on all of them.

I just want to make sure I am reading the results correctly, especially as I am likely to be looking at buying a used bike and maybe unable to test it first (looking on eBay for example).

Thanks.
naiku is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 12:25 PM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I have tried a 58, 60 and 61cm <-- good for you, you are a multi frame type of guy. Those guys are hard to find, u have a gift.
ultraman6970 is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 12:27 PM
  #3  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
have you tried calling CC and talk to them about your measurements? I found their customer service folks to be very helpful.
hayaku is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 12:40 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 7,848
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I have never trusted that thing and probably if you ask the CC guys they dont either... look at the results... 56x60, 56x61, 59x62... Probably the op have never noticed that all frames over 58 are not longer than 59 in a matter of fact a 62 usually is like 57 long. Unless you go custom but even in custom with a frame that big as a 59 or a 61 to put in there a top tube of 60 or 62 the bike will get too flimsy, i know many will say but i have whatever... well racing world is different than custom sightseen world tho But pretty much thats what it is in real world production frames is, probably shorter top tube but longer reach too.

I believe the op should have started saying what his height and inseam is because I really dont trust that calculator at all, always shows weird stuff And probably many here dont trust it either.
ultraman6970 is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 12:47 PM
  #5  
Senior Member
 
bobbycorno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by ultraman6970
...in a matter of fact a 62 usually is like 57 long....
??? Only if it's custom built for somebody who's all legs, or it's designed by somebody who's totally clueless. A typical 62cm bike has a 59-61cm top tube. I'm pretty familiar with that frame size, as it's what I typically ride, and I'm of average proportions for my size.

SP
Bend, OR
bobbycorno is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 12:52 PM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RTP, NC
Posts: 2,190

Bikes: LOOK 595 & Cannondale CAAD9

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
The CC fit calculator was spot on for me. I have normal body proportions though, so maybe it's not as accurate for those with odd proportions. I also had my girlfriend help me with the measurements. It would be foolish to think you can do this alone and achieve accurate measurements. I have my LOOK 595 set up with the French fit (56cm effective TT + 100mm -6 degree stem) and the caad 9 I'm building up will have the Competitive/Eddy fit depending on whether or not I run a 110 or 120mm stem. It's a size 54cm with a 54.5cm effective top tube. I've ridden a 54cm SuperSix with a 110mm -10 degree stem and it also felt perfect, just slightly more aggressive. That's what I'm after with my caad9 build because I'll be racing that one next year.

Here are my fit calculator results:

Measurements
-------------------------------------------
Inseam: 33.75
Trunk: 24.5
Forearm: 14
Arm: 25.5
Thigh: 24
Lower Leg: 22.5
Sternal Notch: 58.75
Total Body Height: 70


The Competitive Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 55.5 - 56.0
Seat tube range c-t: 57.2 - 57.7
Top tube length: 54.7 - 55.1
Stem Length: 11.2 - 11.8
BB-Saddle Position: 78.6 - 80.6
Saddle-Handlebar: 53.1 - 53.7
Saddle Setback: 5.0 - 5.4


The Eddy Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 56.7 - 57.2
Seat tube range c-t: 58.4 - 58.9
Top tube length: 54.7 - 55.1
Stem Length: 10.1 - 10.7
BB-Saddle Position: 77.8 - 79.8
Saddle-Handlebar: 53.9 - 54.5
Saddle Setback: 6.2 - 6.6


The French Fit (cm)
-------------------------------------------
Seat tube range c-c: 58.4 - 58.9
Seat tube range c-t: 60.1 - 60.6
Top tube length: 55.9 - 56.3
Stem Length: 10.3 - 10.9
BB-Saddle Position: 76.1 - 78.1
Saddle-Handlebar: 55.6 - 56.2
Saddle Setback: 5.7 - 6.1
ilovecycling is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 01:05 PM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RTP, NC
Posts: 2,190

Bikes: LOOK 595 & Cannondale CAAD9

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
In case you missed it in my last post...

Don't use those fit calculator results if you took the measurements alone. Get someone to help you. Otherwise, it's going to throw you off as the results are surely messed up.
ilovecycling is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 01:32 PM
  #8  
OM boy
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,358

Bikes: a bunch

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked 636 Times in 434 Posts
some crazy numbers there, and some that prolly are close...
we're talkin 'road' right? sport ridin?

if you got the overall height and (seems like...) inseam measurements close, then you;re about 6' 1" to 6' 3" ish ? maybe with longer legs, but close to normal proportions?

the saddle setback (a very important position thing) is freakishly short - number more common for a rider 5' to 5' 2" tall.
The ST number confirms the weird saddle setback...
Do you have freakishly long shins and super short femur ??? If not, then you got that measurement wrong...
ignore those numbers.
a 56 to 59 frame with 61-62 TT would be some weird custom thing...
If you;re not gonna do full pannier touring or hauling freight then I would stay at 60 and even look for 59 and 58 if you want a snappy ride. no more than 60 TT and vary with stem (110 to 130)
if BB to saddle height seems good the in the 81 to 84 range, then start with a setback of 7cm, moving forward if you do have a short femur, back if you're normal.
61+ TT is like wayyy out there...
I mean 83+ seatheight & 61 TT - are you 6' 4", 6' 5" ???
If I had these numbers, was 6" 1", 6' 2", not an Orangutan, and wanted a sport ride, I'd ignore the ST & setback numbers and look for max TT of 59, a square 59 ST Frame, or 'under square' 60 (TT less than 60...), even an oversquare 58 would be nice - and make up the reach with a 120 or 130 stem. I like a 59, with this info...

Edit: forget what I said about even going to 60 TT, I mean , that's like a 747... unless you put some snubnose stem...

Last edited by cyclezen; 09-30-11 at 01:43 PM.
cyclezen is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 01:40 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: RTP, NC
Posts: 2,190

Bikes: LOOK 595 & Cannondale CAAD9

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
cyclezen- The OP took the measurements himself. Hence, the crazy numbers.
ilovecycling is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 01:45 PM
  #10  
OM boy
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,358

Bikes: a bunch

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked 636 Times in 434 Posts
Originally Posted by ilovecycling
cyclezen- The OP took the measurements himself. Hence, the crazy numbers.
course... so let's read his height ... and find out if he scrapes knuckles when he walks...

crazy...
cyclezen is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 01:52 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Looigi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 8,951
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 12 Posts
For a comparison, try the fit calculator at Wrench Science. It similar, but different.
Looigi is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 02:27 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cyclezen
then you;re about 6' 1" to 6' 3" ish ? maybe with longer legs
Right in the middle, 6'2".

I did take the measurements myself (believe I put that in my original post, and hopefully it came across that the measurements were to be taken with a pinch of salt due to that fact), and definitely if I plan to use the calculator again will have my wife assist me in taking the measurements.

Perhaps that is what confused me when looking at the numbers, especially as I had ridden some 58, 60cm bikes, so the results seemed kind of weird going by what I had been comfortable riding on.

The 60cm bike felt a little tall for me, but at the same time the 58cm bike felt a little small. For sure though I plan to test ride a few more bikes before I actually buy one.
naiku is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 02:29 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
himespau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 13,443
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4227 Post(s)
Liked 2,945 Times in 1,804 Posts
Yeah, I think having your wife do the measuring should help some. I found wacky numbers when I measured myself, that's for sure.
__________________
Bikes: 1996 Eddy Merckx Titanium EX, 1989/90 Colnago Super(issimo?) Piu(?), 1990 Concorde Aquila(hit by car while riding), others in build queue "when I get the time"





himespau is online now  
Old 09-30-11, 03:25 PM
  #14  
ka maté ka maté ka ora
 
pdedes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: wessex
Posts: 4,423

Bikes: breezer venturi - red novo bosberg - red, pedal force cg1 - red, neuvation f-100 - da, devinci phantom - xt, miele piste - miche/campy, bianchi reparto corse sbx, concorde squadra tsx - da, miele team issue sl - ultegra

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
remember fit calculators are a departure point.
pdedes is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 03:41 PM
  #15  
OM boy
 
cyclezen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Goleta CA
Posts: 4,358

Bikes: a bunch

Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Liked 636 Times in 434 Posts
Originally Posted by naiku
Right in the middle, 6'2".

I did take the measurements myself (believe I put that in my original post, and hopefully it came across that the measurements were to be taken with a pinch of salt due to that fact), and definitely if I plan to use the calculator again will have my wife assist me in taking the measurements.
The 60cm bike felt a little tall for me, but at the same time the 58cm bike felt a little small. For sure though I plan to test ride a few more bikes before I actually buy one.
A few years ago I tried to do those fit measurements on myself, and except for the inseam, I botched them all... gotta have someone do them and then triple check. When they're done right, those online calc's are spooky on.

Gonna be a big difference between companies and even models (cannondale and others) for same stated frame sizes, so ride as much as you can. Once you get close you can check frame geo specs and see how they compare. Some 58's are closer to what be expected of a 56/57, some go the other way. And often 1 cm more stem takes a tad 'small' bike into 'just right'.
Even things like bar width have perceivable effect. When I got my Roubaix I really could not get comfortable, it just didn;t feel right - until I swapped out the 44 bar for a 42 - Huge Diff! (that and losing the 'ergo' bends...)
buying a complete bike, without a ride is always an iffy proposition. Better is to buy a frame and then build it the way you would like - but this is always more expensive, even with decent used parts.
cyclezen is offline  
Old 09-30-11, 05:02 PM
  #16  
Senior Member
 
halfspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SE Minnesota
Posts: 12,275

Bikes: are better than yours.

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
The CC fit calculator doesn't account for compact geometry and is, thereby, obsolete. You may as well use the Lemond formula (.65 X inseam).
__________________
Telemachus has, indeed, sneezed.
halfspeed is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
QRs
Road Cycling
4
10-13-11 04:04 PM
jlieu
Road Cycling
4
10-10-11 07:53 AM
reefjockey
Road Cycling
1
04-22-11 04:24 PM
Crappymonkey
Road Cycling
15
01-12-11 04:34 PM
Eres
Bicycle Mechanics
14
10-22-10 10:35 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.